Doesn't change reality at all. Just changes our models of reality.
But it changes what reality means for us. At one point we thought for example we thought that human behaviour was determined by external conditioning. This influenced all our models of human behaviour. Then we discovered that the root of behaviour came from within. So this completely changed reality in how we seen human behaviour.
General Relativity is very complicated. In most circumstances scientists still use Newton's models, but when calculations need to include fast speeds, or gravity then they go to Einstein's models. For example GPS would be highly inaccurate under Newton's models.
I'm thinking of theories like BB, Inflation, String theory, evolutionary behaviour theories where they have added onto to to solve anomelies only to create even more anomelies and never really fitting the data.
But there are anomelies between Newtons and Eiensteins theoies such as the uniting problem between classical physics and QP which no one can overcome and which seems to lead to these complicated unscientific ideas like String theory. Whereas other ideas seem better suited and more simple but are rejected because they don't fit the material paradigm.
Was there ever a time when we didn't have time and space and energy? No one knows.
But thats just appealing to a different kind of God of the gaps in saying time and space and energy was always there. It also breaches the material paradigm that everything that exists has a beginning and a cause within the causal closure of the physical. But at some point there had to be something beyond the causal closure of the physical to begin the physical components that cause the material world.
Religious folk will say, Yes there was, and before all that was God, my God, the god of my religion with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.
What all religions are saying is the same thing that a god or entitity of force was beyond the material but created the material world. That they disagree on exactly which God is not the point. Its that they all have this innate belief that there is something beyond the material. We are born with this innate belief. It just gets hijacked by various cultures.
You will say, YES there was, and before that there were eternal minds, with knowledge and information and capability to poof things into existence and capability to change reality.
Scientists will say, there is no evidence of having no time, no space, no energy so it is unknown. What precedes is unknown. Is there a god poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim. Is there evidence of minds poofing things into existence and changing reality? There is no evidence to support this poorly formed claim.
But the material scientific paradigm's own logic, own methodology says that energy cannot create itself and has to come from somewhere. So it may not point to a specific god or gods at all (at least evidence wise) but it does point to something beyond time, speace, matter and energy.
So what else could it be if not any of these things but something beyond them. What could be beyond this that can create the energy and conditions that would give birth to our universe or any universe.
Sure
Nope, that isn't reasonable at all.
What is it made of?
What mechanism does it have to poof things into existence?
Or to move things?
or to change reality?
How can information and knowledge pre-exist existence? All it could possibly have is knowledge of nothing.
Well obviously the same question about what thoughts or infomration are made of. They are not made of physical stuff yet they are real and exist in the universe and can change things or birth new ideas that change our reality. So what mechanism would you call that in which non physical thoughts can have an influence on the physical world.
Why cannot that some idea by the original. That there was always a mind that exxxisted which contained all knowledge and that this was somehow expressed into existence just like we do. It seems I am not the only one who thinks this way and its got nothing to do with religion. Many scientists are looking to this fundemental idea as a simple and elegant way to united physics such as with Intergrated Information Theory orr Panpsychism.
Perhaps spacetime is eternal, perhaps there is a multiverse. answer = Unknown.
A multiverse just puts the inevitable problem of what caused the first state of conditions to create the multiverse. If spacetime is eternal wouldn't that breach our conceptions of time and entropy.
A thought is the inner workings of the brain. Conceptualising ideas, concepts don't physically exist, they are just tools and models used by conscious beings to think about things. Like a circle, it is just a concept. A circle doesn't exist.
I am not sure, they say that the Universe is Math. A circle has some real representation in nature. Certain equations make reality and patterns exist in nature like with the Madlebrot equation which defies human conceptions.
The math has always been there and we are just dicovering it through our conceptions and models. A thought or conception can exist forever and it can change the world when dicovered and used.
I feel you are falling for the same trap that many religion folk fall for. Getting confused between the idea of conceptual things vs physical things.
Behind all physical things are information, maths or concepts. WE create those concepts and models but they are discovered concepts that already existed fundementally. All physical behaviour that brings about changes in the world originates from the mind. Without them we would not have the same world and would be just meat puppets subject to electrical impulses and for forces of nature.
Nope. No one thinks something into reality.
If someone has an idea for a lightbulb, they have to physically get some metal and create a wire, get some acid and metal and create a battery, physically put it all together to create that lightbulb. There is nothing special about this. The mind isn't poofing a lightbulb into existence.
You missed the point. The idea in the first place comes from the mind. There would be no light bulb but for the mind. We could have been zombies that just driven to survive through their physical reactions and instincts.
But we have a mind that differentiates us from the wires and material components. The ideas that we can then make the light build is from Mind as well as it takes the mind to understand and utilize the materials, measure and make the light bulb.
No, that's not even close to what QM says.
They are saying that observation collapses the wave function. It's not creating the fields, it's not creating the particles, it's not creating or deciding upon the velocity or the position. You can't sit somewhere in USA with your eyes closed and think really hard and next minute a lightbulb turns on in China.
I don;t mean like that. But rather the observer may be through observations be collapsing the wave function. This may happen in an instant. The interface we see may be that collapse in real time always occuring as many oberverse are observing the same thing.
But still maintains a degree of subjectivity in that observers can have different perceptions of the same thing ie the famous dress or how from different positions we get different objective outcomes. Thus showing that there is no one fixed material reality but rather its a reflection that can vary from person to person to some degree.
That doesn't make any sense at all.
Ifg Mind is behind all human conceptions of objective reality then why not the same logic apply for how objective reality came to be in the first place or at least that Mind is fundemental to objective reality. All we know is a direct experience of reality. Any conception about suff really existing outside our Mind cannot be directly verified. We could be a brain in a vat of in a simulation for all we know.
If you can't verify your idea, then throw it onto the trash heap of nonsense ideas. There are a very lot of those.
Thankfully we toss them aside and move on.
Why we cannot verify what conscious actually is, what its nature is or even measure it and never will and yet scientist hold onto an impossible to verify idea like its fact. Especially in the like that at least some of the ideas of consciousness beyond brain have good arguements and some evidence.
We cannot directly verify matter outside the Mind yet we don't throw it in the trash bin.
If you can't explain something then just put "Unknown" as a placeholder. No need to come up with an unverifiable idea of a god or mind abstract from physical reality. That's just being lazy, and presupposing something that you have no intent to find any evidence for.
The very idea of Mind and consciousness being fundemental comes from science itself. It comes from rational thinking about alternative ideas and what the data is saying. There are many good scientific ideas and arguements for MInd, Information and consciousness being fundemental. Here are just a few
John Wheeler’s Participatory Universe
Image: The New York Times John Archibald Wheeler (1911-2008) was a scientist-philosopher who introduced the concept of wormholes and coined the term “black hole”. He pioneered the theory of nuclear fission with Niels Bohr and introduced the S-matrix (the scattering matrix used in quantum...
futurism.com
Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Is All About Observers
Whether you favor a Wheeler-ish universe where the act of observation creates reality by triggering a collapse from outside, or a Many-Worlds approach where individual perceptions subdivide a complex reality from within, observers are central to both the Copenhagen and Many-Worlds interpretations.
Interpreting Quantum Mechanics Is All About Observers
Integrated information theory: from consciousness to its physical substrate
Uncovering the neural basis of consciousness is a major challenge to neuroscience. In this Perspective, Tononi and colleagues describe the integrated information theory of consciousness and how it might be used to answer outstanding questions about the nature of consciousness.
www.nature.com
Is the Universe Made of Math?
In this excerpt from his new book, Our Mathematical Universe, M.I.T. professor Max Tegmark explores the possibility that math does not just describe the universe, but makes the universe
www.scientificamerican.com
A quantum physical argument for panpsychism
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/9572/1/Shan_Gao_-_A_quantum_argument_for_panpsychism_2013.pdf
Quantum and Electromagnetic Fields in Our Universe and Brain: A New Perspective to Comprehend Brain Function
According to our new perspective on brain function, infinite waveless energy is an infinite frequency (energy) that is not related to time or space.
Quantum and Electromagnetic Fields in Our Universe and Brain: A New Perspective to Comprehend Brain Function
An Ontological Solution to the Mind-Body Problem
I have argued for a coherent idealist ontology that explains reality in a more parsimonious and empirically rigorous manner than mainstream physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism. This idealist ontology also offers more explanatory power than both physicalism and bottom-up panpsychism, in that it does not fall prey to either the ‘hard problem of consciousness’ or the ‘subject combination
problem’, respectively. It can be summarized as follows: there is only universal consciousness.
https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/philosophies/philosophies-02-00010/article_deploy/philosophies-02-00010.pdf?version=1492682089
The mind-blowing science behind how our brains shape reality
Social reality can even shape physical reality.
https://www.sciencefocus.com/the-human-body/the-mind-blowing-science-behind-how-our-brains-shape-reality/
So as you can see there is a variety of well supported ideas that are based on Mind and Consciousness being fundemental.
Sorry what?
You are saying knowledge comes from nature and the universe.
But then, didn't you say the mind had this knowledge from before the universe existed?
So obviouslt if the universe and everything is created by knowledge and information itself from a mind then we should expect to find that knowledge and information embedded in nature. We see this in ideas in how the universe fits so well with math (the Math Universe), or in how nature exibits certain patters for example that align with the Madelbrot set.
Tomas Edison was asked where he gets his ideas for his inventions and he said they come to him from the universe out there somewhere as I could not have imagined such things on my own, This is a common them in art and other areas. The idea of laws governing the universe speaks of information and knowledge behind what we see.